125 F. Supp. 3d 211
D.D.C.2015Background
- HT S.R.L., an Italian company, sued its former U.S. consultant Luis Alejandro Velasco in Milan alleging breach of a non‑compete and sought discovery in the U.S. under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.
- A Maryland district judge authorized a § 1782 application; Petitioner issued a subpoena requiring Velasco to produce documents and appear for deposition in Washington, D.C. (later rescheduled to May 21, 2015).
- Velasco objected by email (May 6) and formal correspondence (May 15), retained counsel, then refused to appear or produce documents. Petitioner filed an amended motion to compel in D.C. (where compliance was required).
- Velasco moved to quash the subpoena and sought fees; Petitioner sought to compel and recover fees. The magistrate judge held a hearing and analyzed authority and discretion under § 1782 and Rule 45.
- The court found: it had authority to enforce the subpoena in D.C.; most Intel factors favored enforcement (but noted the commanded party is a participant in the foreign proceeding); the document requests were relevant and scope was narrowed to the contract period; Velasco’s motion to quash was untimely and noncompliant with local meet‑and‑confer requirements.
- Result: Amended motion to compel granted in part and denied in part; motion to quash denied. Petitioner may submit a fee accounting post‑deposition for potential Rule 37(a)(5) expenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether D.C. court may enforce the subpoena issued under § 1782 where compliance was to be in D.C. | Subpoena compliance was located in D.C.; motion to compel properly filed here. | Argued MD had considered issues; challenged disclosures in application. | Court: D.C. has authority to enforce because subpoena required compliance in D.C. |
| Whether § 1782 discovery should be allowed (Intel factors) | Most Intel factors support enforcement: foreign tribunal receptive, proceeding early, no circumvention, narrow relevant requests. | Weighs against because Velasco is a party to the Italian suit and Italy may not permit analogous pre‑hearing discovery. | Court: Balanced factors — majority favor enforcement; but noted party‑status weakens need; nonetheless § 1782 discovery permitted with narrowed scope. |
| Whether the subpoena’s document requests are overbroad/unduly burdensome | Requests are limited to four categories relevant to the non‑compete and therefore reasonable; limit time period to agreement duration + one year. | Objected as vague, overly broad (e.g., broad definition of "Competing Software") and burdensome; asserted Italian law limits discovery. | Court: Requests are relevant and not overly broad as tailored to allegations; limited to contract period and non‑party proprietary info may be redacted. |
| Whether Velasco's Motion to Quash is timely and complies with Local Rule 7(m) | (HT) Motion to quash untimely; Petitioner complied with meet‑and‑confer before filing motion to compel. | (Velasco) Attempted to confer and timely notified Petitioner of intention to quash; objections were made earlier. | Court: Motion to quash fails Local Rule 7(m) and is untimely (filed after compliance date); therefore denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (courts weigh discretionary factors when considering § 1782 requests)
- Lancaster Factoring Co. Ltd. v. Mangone, 90 F.3d 38 (2d Cir.) (party to foreign litigation is an "interested person")
- In re Application of Caratube Int’l Oil Co., LLP, 730 F. Supp. 2d 101 (D.D.C. 2010) (application of Intel factors in § 1782 context)
- Lazaridis v. Int’l Ctr. for Missing & Exploited Children, Inc., 760 F. Supp. 2d 109 (D.D.C. 2011) (standards for § 1782 discovery and scope concerns)
- In re Veiga, 746 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2010) (receptivity and circumvention analysis under § 1782)
- Infineon Technologies AG v. Green Power Technologies Ltd., 247 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2005) (scope and burdensomeness considerations in § 1782 discovery)